Democrats just want an investigation for the headlines it will create.

As I've stated many times you don't get to launch an independent investigation without some precedence of actual EVIDENCE. If the IC and journalists are not able to find ANY evidence of collusion than what is the precedence here?

You had 2.5 months while Obama was still POTUS to find something, anything that would justify an independent investigation. Now you're claiming the FBI and others in IC are not trustworthy enough to investigate the matter on there own without assigning a special independent investigation.

You just want to continue the smear campaign b/c you know if there was real collusion between Trump and Russia something would've been uncovered by now.

I don't see it as a smear campaign, I see it as a legitimate issue... and Burr and Nunes have already shown explicitly that they are not impartial and Sessions has already recused himself.

I'm continually surprised by republicans who don't want to find out how to prevent future interference of our elections simply to protect "their guy". Let's not forget that it isn't disputed (even by the so-called president) that Russia had a multi-faceted operation to influence our elections. Don't we want to know to what extent they were successful and how we can prevent it in the future?

BTW, investigations like this don't take 50 days. There is no time limit for information gathering. There is no "it would have come out by now" and your assumption of that is childish.

I don't see it as a smear campaign, I see it as a legitimate issue... and Burr and Nunes have already shown explicitly that they are not impartial and Sessions has already recused himself.

I'm continually surprised by republicans who don't want to find out how to prevent future interference of our elections simply to protect "their guy". Let's not forget that it isn't disputed (even by the so-called president) that Russia had a multi-faceted operation to influence our elections. Don't we want to know to what extent they were successful and how we can prevent it in the future?

BTW, investigations like this don't take 50 days. There is no time limit for information gathering. There is no "it would have come out by now" and your assumption of that is childish.

I'm sure your interest in an independent investigation is not based on partisanship at all and you just after truth and justice. How noble of you.

I don't see it as a smear campaign, I see it as a legitimate issue... and Burr and Nunes have already shown explicitly that they are not impartial and Sessions has already recused himself.

I'm continually surprised by republicans who don't want to find out how to prevent future interference of our elections simply to protect "their guy". Let's not forget that it isn't disputed (even by the so-called president) that Russia had a multi-faceted operation to influence our elections. Don't we want to know to what extent they were successful and how we can prevent it in the future?

BTW, investigations like this don't take 50 days. There is no time limit for information gathering. There is no "it would have come out by now" and your assumption of that is childish.

I'm sure your interest in an independent investigation is not based on partisanship at all and you just after truth and justice. How noble of you.

Do you have a reason to believe that an independent investigation would slant more towards partisanship or less towards partisanship?

DreadNaught wrote:I'm sure your interest in an independent investigation is not based on partisanship at all and you just after truth and justice. How noble of you.

Do you have a reason to believe that an independent investigation would slant more towards partisanship or less towards partisanship?

Not what I said, I stated partisan Democrats want to continue to smear Trump and an independent investigation would be a tool to do so, which is why they are pressing for it.

In the event you get your wish and there is such an investigation I'm sure it would an honorable person heading it. But that wouldn't stop the Dems and MSM from politicizing it for there own gain.

You don't get to launch an independent investigation against the POTUS because your parties candidate didn't win. Find a reason/basis (like EVIDENCE) to use as precedent to request such an investigation. Right now there is none.

Corsair wrote:Do you have a reason to believe that an independent investigation would slant more towards partisanship or less towards partisanship?

Not what I said, I stated partisan Democrats want to continue to smear Trump and an independent investigation would be a tool to do so, which is why they are pressing for it.

In the event you get your wish and there is such an investigation I'm sure it would an honorable person heading it. But that wouldn't stop the Dems and MSM from politicizing it for there own gain.

You don't get to launch an independent investigation against the POTUS because your parties candidate didn't win. Find a reason/basis (like EVIDENCE) to use as precedent to request such an investigation. Right now there is none.

DreadNaught wrote:You don't get to launch an independent investigation against the POTUS because your parties candidate didn't win.

I love the fact that you still actually believe that nonsense.

You want an investigation launched based on NO evidence of collusion despite the FBI, CIA, countless journos and god knows who else looking for ANY inkling of evidence. NOTHING has been found, or as former CIA Director and Clinton ally stated yesterday "not even a spark". Then you come here under the guise of legitimacy pretending you are looking out for something other than the interests of your own political ideology.

Just be honest with yourselves. If the situation was reversed would you be banging the table for an independent investigation into Hillary? Of course not... And her camp HAS WAYYY more connections to Russia than Trump or his 'associates do. So spare us w/ your BS...

Last edited by DreadNaught on Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DreadNaught wrote:Not what I said, I stated partisan Democrats want to continue to smear Trump and an independent investigation would be a tool to do so, which is why they are pressing for it.

In the event you get your wish and there is such an investigation I'm sure it would an honorable person heading it. But that wouldn't stop the Dems and MSM from politicizing it for there own gain.

You don't get to launch an independent investigation against the POTUS because your parties candidate didn't win. Find a reason/basis (like EVIDENCE) to use as precedent to request such an investigation. Right now there is none.

bucfanclw wrote:I love the fact that you still actually believe that nonsense.

You want an investigation launched based on NO evidence of collusion despite the FBI, CIA, countless journos and god knows who else looking for ANY inkling of evidence. NOTHING has been found, or as former CIA Director and Clinton ally stated yesterday "not even a spark". Then you come here under the guise of legitimacy pretending you are looking out for something other than the interests of your own political ideology.

Just be honest with yourselves. If the situation was reversed would you be banging the table for an independent investigation into Hillary? Of course not... And her camp HAS WAYYY more connections to Russia than Trump or his 'associates do. So spare us w/ your BS...

Aww... do you need a tissue? I think you need a tissue. It much suck being the victim so often.

DreadNaught wrote:You want an investigation launched based on NO evidence of collusion despite the FBI, CIA, countless journos and god knows who else looking for ANY inkling of evidence. NOTHING has been found, or as former CIA Director and Clinton ally stated yesterday "not even a spark". Then you come here under the guise of legitimacy pretending you are looking out for something other than the interests of your own political ideology.

Just be honest with yourselves. If the situation was reversed would you be banging the table for an independent investigation into Hillary? Of course not... And her camp HAS WAYYY more connections to Russia than Trump or his 'associates do. So spare us w/ your BS...

Aww... do you need a tissue? I think you need a tissue. It much suck being the victim so often.

DreadNaught wrote:Just be honest with yourselves. If the situation was reversed would you be banging the table for an independent investigation into Hillary? Of course not... And her camp HAS WAYYY more connections to Russia than Trump or his 'associates do. So spare us w/ your BS...

You can point at the other team all you want, but that doesn't take away the fact that Trump straight up appointed Exxon Mobil's CEO to ****ing Secretary of State!...all so they could get this massive oil deal done with Russia. You know why Obama put the sanctions in place, right? Putin invades Crimea and takes control of a **** ton of oil (mainly from an area of Black Sea). The US (and most of the modernized world) sanctions them and won't buy the oil...since they just straight up invaded and stole the land/oil. Now Trump appoints Exxon Moil's CEO so we can lift the sanctions and reward Putin for invading another country and stealing their resources by buying them from Putin.

I mean, what the ****ing ****, dude? How can you be okay with your boy doing this?

Rocker wrote:I agree with your point Delt. However, I'm more upset with selling American uranium to Russia than I am with America buying Russian oil.

I honestly don't know what I'm more upset about. Either one is infuriating. But to say "America buying Russian oil" is oversimplifying at best. "America buying oil Ukrainian/Crimean oil from Russia after Putin invaded them to take possession of the oil", is more accurate. If it were just America buying Russian oil, then yeah, I'd be much more upset about selling American uranium to Russia than buying the oil.

Rocker wrote:I agree with your point Delt. However, I'm more upset with selling American uranium to Russia than I am with America buying Russian oil.

I honestly don't know what I'm more upset about. Either one is infuriating. But to say "America buying Russian oil" is oversimplifying at best. "America buying oil Ukrainian/Crimean oil from Russia after Putin invaded them to take possession of the oil", is more accurate. If it were just America buying Russian oil, then yeah, I'd be much more upset about selling American uranium to Russia than buying the oil.

I simplified my post. From a human rights standpoint; I'm ****ing furious about how the US responded to that chain of events. Politically, it's hardly worth arguing; as imho Obama's foreign policy stance was terribad on so many occasions.

deltbucs wrote:I honestly don't know what I'm more upset about. Either one is infuriating. But to say "America buying Russian oil" is oversimplifying at best. "America buying oil Ukrainian/Crimean oil from Russia after Putin invaded them to take possession of the oil", is more accurate. If it were just America buying Russian oil, then yeah, I'd be much more upset about selling American uranium to Russia than buying the oil.

I simplified my post. From a human rights standpoint; I'm ****ing furious about how the US responded to that chain of events. Politically, it's hardly worth arguing; as imho Obama's foreign policy stance was terribad on so many occasions.

Have you ever listened to John Bachelor?

I have not. The only political talk radio that I listen to is the POTUS channel on Sirius/XM. It's not bad for unbiased or equally bias talk when it comes to shows like Steele & Ungar...which I like.

I simplified my post. From a human rights standpoint; I'm ****ing furious about how the US responded to that chain of events. Politically, it's hardly worth arguing; as imho Obama's foreign policy stance was terribad on so many occasions.

Have you ever listened to John Bachelor?

I have not. The only political talk radio that I listen to is the POTUS channel on Sirius/XM. It's not bad for unbiased or equally bias talk when it comes to shows like Steele & Ungar...which I like.

He's a late night guy; came on 9PM-1AM when I lived in DC. Thing I enjoyed about his show was that he acted more as a moderator for the experts he'd bring on. Spent a lot of time focusing on stories out of Russia and China. Really enjoyed the segments on Ukraine when Crimea was going down. I think he re-airs his shows in podcast form.

There is no evidence to support that Obama had Trump's wiretaps, those claims were made up.

There is an ongoing investigation into Trump ties with Russians agents, and it has passed the high standard to initiate a counterintelligence investigation. In fact, this investigation has been ongoing since July.

Last edited by Corsair on Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Babeinbucland wrote:Looks like they decided to go with proving trump and the Russsians hacked the election

Hacked the election? Admiral Rogers stated there was no evidence that a single vote was changed...didn't he?

That's the part of this that pisses me off. The Russians could have hacked all sorts of stuff, put out all kinds of fake news, done it all while coordinating with the Trump campaign on the daily and STILL couldn't have possibly altered a single vote.

Clinging onto this Russia thing let's corporate Democrats sit there and ignore the fact that a very large portion of the population does not like them and will not vote for them.

It hands total control of government to the Republicans and is sheer madness.

HamBone wrote:Hacked the election? Admiral Rogers stated there was no evidence that a single vote was changed...didn't he?

That's the part of this that pisses me off. The Russians could have hacked all sorts of stuff, put out all kinds of fake news, done it all while coordinating with the Trump campaign on the daily and STILL couldn't have possibly altered a single vote.

Clinging onto this Russia thing let's corporate Democrats sit there and ignore the fact that a very large portion of the population does not like them and will not vote for them.

It hands total control of government to the Republicans and is sheer madness.

I prefer one party have the White House and another party control the Congress...that way neither side can push their agenda through.